Don_Simon Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Neck on the line time... Kendrick has just tweeted "we want to be together", with a random YouTube video attached. 2+2 = Benteke's signed a new deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 ^^Weimann because he looks more like Paul Whitehouse in those adverts........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted May 20, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted May 20, 2013 Garth Crooks in good selection shocker. I'd argue Baines at LB and possibly shoehorn Suarez in there. But yeah, surprisingly decent for Crooks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Neck on the line time... Kendrick has just tweeted "we want to be together", with a random YouTube video attached. 2+2 = Benteke's signed a new deal. Or that the guy in the video looks like Kendrick.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belgian guy Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 i have a question why does some english ppl say "superB" why is there sometimes a B and sometimes not? i don't understand :s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunderstudy Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belgian guy Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. but if they mean the same why are there 2 of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 (edited) Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. but if they mean the same why are there 2 of them? They are both originally Latin words. 'Super' is Latin for "above" and is an abbreviation of 'superbus' meaning "grand" which is where we get 'superb' from. Edited May 20, 2013 by LondonLax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. but if they mean the same why are there 2 of them? There's also superp, subert and supure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belgian guy Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. but if they mean the same why are there 2 of them? There's also superp, subert and supure. lol right at the moment i thought i knew the difference i see this post lol xD... what a confusing language =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. but if they mean the same why are there 2 of them? There's also superp, subert and supure. lol right at the moment i thought i knew the difference i see this post lol xD... what a confusing language =/ English is a weird language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. but if they mean the same why are there 2 of them? There's also superp, subert and supure. lol right at the moment i thought i knew the difference i see this post lol xD... what a confusing language =/ BG your English is many many times better than the majority of us trying to speak your language (I'm never sure if Flemish, Belgium or Dutch or a mixture?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. but if they mean the same why are there 2 of them? They are both originally Latin words. 'Super' is Latin for "above" and is an abbreviation of 'superbus' meaning "grand" which is where we get 'superb' from. You'll get that a lot! Because of the sheer number of cultures English has been heavily influenced by, you will time and again get words that mean the same thing! It's maddening, but it's part of its charm as well. English is a hybrid language, more so than any other language I'd guess. And it's still evolving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belgian guy Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Because super and superb are two separate words! With almost exactly the same meaning. but if they mean the same why are there 2 of them? There's also superp, subert and supure. lol right at the moment i thought i knew the difference i see this post lol xD... what a confusing language =/ BG your English is many many times better than the majority of us trying to speak your language (I'm never sure if Flemish, Belgium or Dutch or a mixture?) belgium language doesn't exist flemish is the same as dutch but with a different accent. in flanders we speak flemish = dutch in walony we speak french benteke is from walony so thats why he speaks french. if u live in brussels u most likely speak both. in the flemish area of the land is both french and dutch educated in the walony part only french. =P im from flanders but i speak both Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skarroki Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 this is going back a few pages, might have been discussed since, but i don't think there is a cap on the amount of money Lambert can spend IN TOTAL, i think he is capped on how much money he can spend PER PLAYER, for instance if he had 20mil he couldn't buy a great player for 16mil then a couple of unknowns, i think 8mil is his cap on how much single players can be bought for, i think this was also the case in the situation of MON with it being 12mil. if we sold benteke i don't think lambert could go out and buy some massive player with the money, i'm pretty sure lerner wants the club where it belongs but he just doesn't want another couple of expensive mistakes on the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butterfingers Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 this is going back a few pages, might have been discussed since, but i don't think there is a cap on the amount of money Lambert can spend IN TOTAL, i think he is capped on how much money he can spend PER PLAYER, for instance if he had 20mil he couldn't buy a great player for 16mil then a couple of unknowns, i think 8mil is his cap on how much single players can be bought for, i think this was also the case in the situation of MON with it being 12mil. if we sold benteke i don't think lambert could go out and buy some massive player with the money, i'm pretty sure lerner wants the club where it belongs but he just doesn't want another couple of expensive mistakes on the way That's interesting-I wasn't aware of "caps" on players,either for PL or MON.Salaries yes but not on actual transfer fees. If the worst happened and Benteke was to be sold,I think it would be essential for us to spend big to replace him-As we did by spending the Milner money on Bent (not like for like but the money was reinvested on 1 player) Another interesting factor in all of this is would we be prepared to let Bent go before Benteke is tied down?I think we could do a lot worse than Bent if we looked elsewhere.Other than the Swansea lad whose name escape me & would not come cheap,I'd struggle to think of a realistic replacement. How about a cheeky bid for Lakuku?He can play wide-To pitch him with CB would be interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarjei Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 this is going back a few pages, might have been discussed since, but i don't think there is a cap on the amount of money Lambert can spend IN TOTAL, i think he is capped on how much money he can spend PER PLAYER, for instance if he had 20mil he couldn't buy a great player for 16mil then a couple of unknowns, i think 8mil is his cap on how much single players can be bought for, i think this was also the case in the situation of MON with it being 12mil. if we sold benteke i don't think lambert could go out and buy some massive player with the money, i'm pretty sure lerner wants the club where it belongs but he just doesn't want another couple of expensive mistakes on the wayWhat are you basing this thinking on? Because it sounds like it's based on nothing at all. I would assume he has a transfer budget and any deals have to be given the final go ahead on a deal-by-deal basis, but like anyone not "in the know" I'm only guessing so what is really the point in speculating on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 How about a cheeky bid for Lakuku?He can play wide-To pitch him with CB would be interesting. To get permanently you're looking at a similar figure to that we'd want for Benteke.. Least u forget he got 17 goals this season himself, is what 18/19 and cost Chelsea £18m.. Think on loan is also unlikelahead he has already said he wants to play in Europe (competition wise) to develop further Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hev Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 Darren Lewis in The Mirror (yes I know) over the last couple of days is single handedly touting him for Spurs - one day he says AVB is known to want Christian Benteke and the next day he repeats it and says that " whilst Villa are in talks to offer him a new deal, Spurs can easily trump any salary the Midlands Club are likely to offer" - also Brazil of Talksport is keen to tout Benteke for Spurs - It really annoys me all this does , the way they think other clubs can just come and lift our best players off us (mind you, after recent seasons, you can see why they think it) - whether or not we hold on to CB will say a lot about Randy's ambition for the future I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilS Posted May 22, 2013 Share Posted May 22, 2013 The press tends to be made up of Spurs/Arsenal/Chelsea/Wham fans so you will often see them bigging up Spurs or the other London clubs. There is a chance that he could end up going to Spurs, I wouldn't rule it out. However, we hold all of the Aces and if Spurs are after him they will have to pay a lot of money to get Benteke. I don't see us letting him go for some of the figures mentioned in the Press £15m etc. With all of the money on offer this season, and with Benteke having 3 years left on his contract and seemingly enjoying it here I think he will stay unless we get a silly offer. This would make me wonder whether Spurs will break the bank for Benteke, they are talking of Stadium development, along with failure to qualify for the Champions League that will hinder their finances. Recent history shows that we have been pretty good on the whole for getting good prices for our in demand players, our big problem is when it comes to re-invest the transfer fees we haven't done it very wisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts